From MacOSX-TeX@email.esm.psu.edu Sat Dec 14 20:02:24 2002
Received: from engremail.engr.psu.edu ([130.203.201.4]) by engrmail1.engr.psu.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);
Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:01:39 -0500
Received: from email.esm.psu.edu ([130.203.247.204]) by engremail.engr.psu.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);
Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:01:38 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:00:01 -0500
Subject: MacOSX-TeX Digest #511 - 12/14/02
From: "TeX on Mac OS X Mailing List"
To: "TeX on Mac OS X Mailing List"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Sender:
Precedence: Bulk
List-Software: LetterRip Pro 4.0 by LetterRip Software, LLC.
List-Subscribe:
List-Digest:
List-Unsubscribe:
Return-Path: MacOSX-TeX@email.esm.psu.edu
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2002 01:01:38.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[859548F0:01C2A3D5]
MacOSX-TeX Digest #511 - Saturday, December 14, 2002
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "Gina Wilson"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "William McCallum"
Re: [OS X TeX] Re: Convert Latex to html
by "Piet van Oostrum"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "Axel E. Retif"
Re: [OS X TeX] Convert Latex to html
by "Piet van Oostrum"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "William McCallum"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "Axel E. Retif"
installing Type 1 fonts
by "Philip Graber"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "Martin Costabel"
Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
by "Axel E. Retif"
Re: [OS X TeX] installing Type 1 fonts
by "Bruno Voisin"
Where's Utopia gone?
by "Bruno Voisin"
Re: [OS X TeX] Where's Utopia gone?
by "Gerben Wierda"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "Gina Wilson"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 07:56:34 -0500
I am using Gerben's tex distribution (thanks for the great work) on
10.2.1 and I have fink's system-tetex installed. I would like to
install doxygen through fink but fink wants to install its own tetex
package and ignore system-tetex. Has anyone else run into this? There
was some talk on this list that the fink distribution includes
additional things. Is it a possibility that doxygen is looking for a
package not in Gerben's distribution and that is why fink wants to
install its own tetex and ignore system-tetex?
Thanks,
Gina
On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Joseph C. Slater wrote:
>
>> So, my advise is, feel free to use Fink if it has stuff you need that
>> I do not provide (like xdvi). But I think you can use xdvi and
>> friends from Fink in combination of my TeX distribution which you can
>> use through Fink with the system-tetex fink package.
>>
>
> Yes you can. I have.
>
>> G
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "William McCallum"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 06:07:33 -0800
On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 04:56 AM, Gina Wilson wrote:
> I am using Gerben's tex distribution (thanks for the great work) on
> 10.2.1 and I have fink's system-tetex installed. I would like to
> install doxygen through fink but fink wants to install its own tetex
> package and ignore system-tetex. Has anyone else run into this?
> There was some talk on this list that the fink distribution includes
> additional things. Is it a possibility that doxygen is looking for a
> package not in Gerben's distribution and that is why fink wants to
> install its own tetex and ignore system-tetex?
>
This is really a question for the maintainer of doxygen, whom I have
copied in this email. There are a couple of odd things about the
dependencies for doxygen. For example, it only seems to depend on tetex
during the build phase, but depends on pdftex during run time. However,
it doesn't seem to depend on any tex things not in Gerben's
distribution, so you might be able to get away with ignoring the
dependencies using --force-depends (assuming you have all the non-tex
dependencies installed, of course).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Re: Convert Latex to html
From: "Piet van Oostrum"
Date: 14 Dec 2002 15:20:02 +0100
>>>>> John Vokey (JV) writes:
JV> TeX4ht was recently included in the ``known i-packages'' list, and it =
works
JV> quite well. You need to install imageMagick and Freetype as well. To =
use
JV> TeX4ht, add a \usepackage{TeX4ht} in your tex file that you want =
converted.
JV> Then, from the terminal, type htlatex filename.tex (assuming your =
directory
JV> is the folder of your tex file).
To use htlatex you don't have to include the \usepackage{tex4ht} in your
LaTeX file as htlatex does something with the same effect. With the
usepackage you can also include additional options, but these can also be
given as the second argument to htlatex. See
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/TeX4ht/mn.html
--
Piet van Oostrum
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van.Oostrum@hccnet.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "Axel E. Retif"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:22:34 -0600
On Saturday, Dec 14, 2002, at 06:56 America/Mexico_City, Gina Wilson
wrote:
> I am using Gerben's tex distribution (thanks for the great work) on
> 10.2.1 and I have fink's system-tetex installed. I would like to
> install doxygen through fink but fink wants to install its own tetex
> package and ignore system-tetex. Has anyone else run into this?
> There was some talk on this list that the fink distribution includes
> additional things. Is it a possibility that doxygen is looking for a
> package not in Gerben's distribution and that is why fink wants to
> install its own tetex and ignore system-tetex?
Of course Mr. Wierda knows better, but ... I wouldn't advice you to mix
his distribution with Fink's teTeX. Maybe within TeXShop you can
control which TeX engine you will use, but if you want to use the
(Terminal.app) command line, which will be used?
I think it's weird fink is asking you to install teTeX if you already
have system-tetex installed. Maybe it is because doxygen is in the
unstable tree (so you have configured fink to install unstable
packages), or perhaps system-tetex wasn't installed properly. Have you
tried with other packages in the stable tree (like TeXmacs) that depend
on teTeX? If system-tetex is properly installed, TeXmacs should not ask
you to install fink's teTeX.
In the Doxygen page they have a Mac OS X binary distribution. (I don't
know if it works ---I don't really know what Doxygen is... I was just
curious.)
Axel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Convert Latex to html
From: "Piet van Oostrum"
Date: 14 Dec 2002 15:32:03 +0100
>>>>> Gerben Wierda (GW) writes:
GW> On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 13:20 Europe/Amsterdam, Piet van Oostrum =
wrote:
>> I tried a document with a simple tabular and it made a HTML table out =
of
>> it. It will make graphics out of complicated math expressions, however.
GW> I have a document with a complicated table and that was turned into
GW> graphics. Strange.
Maybe it was an array in a display formula. Display formula's are turned
into graphics.
--
Piet van Oostrum
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van.Oostrum@hccnet.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "William McCallum"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 07:01:20 -0800
On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 06:22 AM, Axel E. Retif wrote:
>
> I think it's weird fink is asking you to install teTeX if you already
> have system-tetex installed. Maybe it is because doxygen is in the
> unstable tree (so you have configured fink to install unstable
> packages), or perhaps system-tetex wasn't installed properly. Have you
> tried with other packages in the stable tree (like TeXmacs) that
> depend on teTeX? If system-tetex is properly installed, TeXmacs should
> not ask you to install fink's teTeX.
>
>
The dependencies in a fink package are set by the maintainer of the
package. Fink doesn't try to make guesses about alternate possible
dependencies, it just does exactly what is specified in the info file
for the package (look in
/sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/finkinfo/devel/doxygen-1.2.18-1.info).
It's either an oversight or an intentional choice that the maintainer
didn't specifiy system-tetex as an alternative: the only way to know is
to ask the maintainer.
Regards,
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "Axel E. Retif"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:42:34 -0600
On Saturday, Dec 14, 2002, at 09:01 America/Mexico_City, William
McCallum wrote:
> On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 06:22 AM, Axel E. Retif wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it's weird fink is asking you to install teTeX if you already
>> have system-tetex installed. Maybe it is because doxygen is in the
>> unstable tree (so you have configured fink to install unstable
>> packages), or perhaps system-tetex wasn't installed properly. Have
>> you tried with other packages in the stable tree (like TeXmacs) that
>> depend on teTeX? If system-tetex is properly installed, TeXmacs
>> should not ask you to install fink's teTeX.
>>
>>
>
> The dependencies in a fink package are set by the maintainer of the
> package. Fink doesn't try to make guesses about alternate possible
> dependencies, it just does exactly what is specified in the info file
> for the package (look in
> /sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/finkinfo/devel/doxygen-1.2.18-1.info).
> It's either an oversight or an intentional choice that the maintainer
> didn't specifiy system-tetex as an alternative: the only way to know
> is to ask the maintainer.
That's right ---doxygen-1.2.18-1.info (in the unstable tree) says:
Depends: graphviz, pdftex (>=3D 20010417-9), hyperref (>=3D 6.72-2)
BuildDepends: tetex-base, ghostscript | ghostscript-nox, fileutils,
tetex-macosx, dlcompat-dev
But texmacs-1.0.0.21-1.info (in the stable tree) says:
Depends: x11, tetex-base, guile, ispell, wget
BuildDepends: guile-dev, dlcompat-dev
Recommends: ghostscript, netpbm, xfig, pari-gp, macaulay2
system-tetex is not mentioned here, but any way it installs without a
problem (not so Lyx, which asks for an installation of Ghostscript v.6,
not accepting system-ghostscript--(Wierda's) Ghostscript v.7).
Axel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: installing Type 1 fonts
From: "Philip Graber"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:12:35 -0500
installing Type 1 fonts
I use cbgreek fonts for polytonic Greek with babel.
Recently, Type 1 fonts for cbgreek were posted to CTAN. There
are scripts there for installing in Linux and Windows, but not Mac,
and I don't seem to have done it correctly manually.
I have placed all the .pfb files in the following
directory:
/Users/username/Library/texmf/fonts/type1/public/cbgreek/
I copied the contents of cbgreek.map into
/Users/username/Library/texmf/dvips/psfonts.map
The lines copied are all of the form:
gmmn0500
TeX-gmmn0500 <gmmn0500.pfb
But when I run pdflatex (from TeXShop 1.19 in OS X 10.1.5), the
cbgreek fonts used are still the .pk files from
/Users/username/Library/texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cbgreek/
Any help would be appreciated. I am looking forward to
being able to produce pdf files with Greek text in them that is
readable at normal magnification on screen.
--
Philip Graber
Ronceverte, West Virginia USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "Martin Costabel"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:11:12 +0100
Axel E. Retif wrote:
[]
> That's right ---doxygen-1.2.18-1.info (in the unstable tree) says:
>
> Depends: graphviz, pdftex (>=3D 20010417-9), hyperref (>=3D 6.72-2)
> BuildDepends: tetex-base, ghostscript | ghostscript-nox, fileutils,
> tetex-macosx, dlcompat-dev
The problem comes from the required version numbers for pdftex and
hyperref. Without them it would build with system-tetex, because
system-tetex "Provides" pdftex and hyperref as virtual packages (but
virtual packages don't have version numbers).
In principle, it is correct to say that the package maintainer knows
whether dependencies like these restrictions on the version numbers are
necessary and whether perhaps the package really only works with Fink's
tetex (which I doubt).
But: Very few people will have both Fink's and Gerben's tex packages
available for testing, so it is not sure if the package maintainer knows
about this problem. Fink is a community effort and grateful for anyone
taking the time to test packages.
So it might be a good idea for Gina to
- copy the doxigen info and patch files from
/sw/fink/dist/unstable/main/finkinfo/devel/ to
/sw/fink/dists/local/main/finkinfo/ and
- edit the Depends line, eliminating the conditions on the version
numbers, so that it looks as follows
Depends: graphviz, pdftex, hyperref
- then run "fink install doxygen". It should now proceed without
requiring Fink's tetex. Finally
- report to the package maintainer whether it (un)successfully builds
and runs.
> But texmacs-1.0.0.21-1.info (in the stable tree) says:
>
> Depends: x11, tetex-base, guile, ispell, wget
> BuildDepends: guile-dev, dlcompat-dev
> Recommends: ghostscript, netpbm, xfig, pari-gp, macaulay2
>
> system-tetex is not mentioned here, but any way it installs without a
> problem
Nice to hear. I happen to know ;-) that the package maintainer had not
tested whether texmacs works with system-tetex.
--
Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] i-version vs. Fink
From: "Axel E. Retif"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:47:37 -0600
On Saturday, Dec 14, 2002, at 11:11 America/Mexico_City, Martin
Costabel wrote:
> Axel E. Retif wrote:
> []
>> That's right ---doxygen-1.2.18-1.info (in the unstable tree) says:
>> Depends: graphviz, pdftex (>=3D 20010417-9), hyperref (>=3D 6.72-2)
>> BuildDepends: tetex-base, ghostscript | ghostscript-nox, fileutils,
>> tetex-macosx, dlcompat-dev
>
> The problem comes from the required version numbers for pdftex and
> hyperref. Without them it would build with system-tetex, because
> system-tetex "Provides" pdftex and hyperref as virtual packages (but
> virtual packages don't have version numbers).
[...]
William McCallum has already e-mailed this issue to Thomas Kotzian
(Doxygen mainteiner), and he himself is trying to work on system-tetex
to see if it can accept Wierda's pdftex and hyperref (or so I
understood).
>> But texmacs-1.0.0.21-1.info (in the stable tree) says:
>> Depends: x11, tetex-base, guile, ispell, wget
>> BuildDepends: guile-dev, dlcompat-dev
>> Recommends: ghostscript, netpbm, xfig, pari-gp, macaulay2
>> system-tetex is not mentioned here, but any way it installs without a
>> problem
>
> Nice to hear. I happen to know ;-) that the package maintainer had not
> tested whether texmacs works with system-tetex.
Yes, it does, and very nicely ---both with Gnome-Sawfish as well as
OroborOSX-v0.8b2, without .xinitrc running (using xterm to launched:
texmacs &).
Axel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] installing Type 1 fonts
From: "Bruno Voisin"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:28:27 +0100
Hello,
> I have placed all the .pfb files in the following directory:
> /Users/username/Library/texmf/fonts/type1/public/cbgreek/
You can either do this, or put the .pfb files in (instead of
~/Library/texmf):
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.local
for them to be accessible to the other account owners on your computer.
However, to modify anything in the texmf.local directory you'll have to
either login as root or "System Administrator", or (what's safer) use
Terminal.app and proceed from the command line using sudo, for example:
cd /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.local
sudo mkdir fonts
cd fonts
sudo mkdir type1
cd type1
sudo mkdir public
cd public
sudo mkdir cbgreek
sudo mv ~/Library/texmf/fonts/type1/public/cbgreek/*.pfb
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.local/fonts/type1/public/cbgreek/
(the above lines might not work, and some are probably unnecessary, as
I'm not a command-line specialist, but you see the idea).
> I copied the contents of cbgreek.map into
> /Users/username/Library/texmf/dvips/psfonts.map
> The lines copied are all of the form:
> gmmn0500 TeX-gmmn0500
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:43:52 +0100
Hello,
I recently felt adventurous and decided to install TeX Programs
(Experimental) using i-Installer. First I had to remove TeX Foundation
and TeX Programs (selecting "Part" and not "Full" so that my additions
to texmf.local were kept), and then installed TeX Foundation and TeX
Programs (Experimental).
But now I can't see anything Utopia-related anymore. Neither the fonts
in /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/fonts/type1/adobe which is empty, nor
LaTeX's support files for them in
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/tex/latex/psnfss.
I don't think it's related to my remove/install cycle, I imagine that
for some reason (licensing?) Utopia has been removed from teTeX. Does
anybody know more about this?
(For the record: I chickened out, removed TeX Foundation/TeX Programs
(Experimental) and reinstalled TeX Foundation/TeX Programs. Alas,
Utopia's not there afterwards, a confirmation if need be that it's
unrelated.)
Bruno Voisin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Where's Utopia gone?
From: "Gerben Wierda"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:36:58 +0100
On Saturday, Dec 14, 2002, at 19:43 Europe/Amsterdam, Bruno Voisin
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I recently felt adventurous and decided to install TeX Programs
> (Experimental) using i-Installer. First I had to remove TeX Foundation
> and TeX Programs (selecting "Part" and not "Full" so that my additions
> to texmf.local were kept), and then installed TeX Foundation and TeX
> Programs (Experimental).
>
> But now I can't see anything Utopia-related anymore. Neither the fonts
> in /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/fonts/type1/adobe which is empty, nor
> LaTeX's support files for them in
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/tex/latex/psnfss.
>
> I don't think it's related to my remove/install cycle, I imagine that
> for some reason (licensing?) Utopia has been removed from teTeX. Does
> anybody know more about this?
From the teTeX ChangeLog:
Thu Oct 17 00:16:32 CEST 2002
* Adobe Utopia fonts + support files removed; the fonts are not
free software
Thomas Esser keeps a very strict licensing strategy. So, it has been
removed from teTeX's texmf tree.
> (For the record: I chickened out, removed TeX Foundation/TeX Programs
> (Experimental) and reinstalled TeX Foundation/TeX Programs. Alas,
> Utopia's not there afterwards, a confirmation if need be that it's
> unrelated.)
It has been removed earlier. I had not noticed this. I'll try to repair
this by including them in texmf.macosx, but it would help if I would
know what exactly is needed.
G
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of MacOSX-TeX Digest
-----------------------------------------------------
Mac TeX info, resources, and news can be found at:
-----------------------------------------------------
List archives can be found at:
-----------------------------------------------------
See message headers for list info.
-----------------------------------------------------